Talk:Supposed Dance of Stars Problem/@comment-67.189.83.6-20150915141015/@comment-25575488-20150919091155
(8 in discussion) _______________ To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars. _____________ I refuse to focus out other "apparent" motions. Like such as would render Heliocentric model dubious, if taken seriously (negative parallax). ______________ We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other. ______________ If my guess is right that stars are one or two light days away from us, they are of course much closer than that to each other. One light day away = Adam and Eve could see the light created on day four on the first evening of their life. Two light days away, sorry reverse, two light days away it's just Adam and Eve, but one light day away the birds created on day five could also enjoy them from start. _______________ Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects). ________________ Operative word : can. Before this was predicted and sighted, astronomers had already decided they were going to. They had basically "grown out of" even considering Geocentrism with angelic movers, which was standard in the days of Riccioli (for it) and Newton (who was against it). _________________ And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature. ___________________ If you know the dances of European folklore, dance moves tend to be predictable. Very good dancers seen at a distance (not so close you could see their faces or fingers, of course) would look very similar to robots programmed for the dance. At enough distance, indistinguishable. I opt for option 3, a design - choreographic such - beyond the nature of stars and angels, and through the will of these, obedient to their maker and chroreographer. ____________________ You seem to suggest that angels are doing this. ____________________ Not only "seem to suggest" - if you click at category celestial mechanics, you will find Angelic movers. I am saying it very explicitly. ____________________ To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth. ____________________ Are following a design of things, that in fact can be seen as imitating it. ____________________ It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation. ____________________ Not so. My explanation is double. Remember now, the times when planets (including sun and moon) block some object of the zodiak are ALSO designed. But they are not designed FOR the convenience of astrologers making horoscopes, at least not generally for every man. Of course, once over Bethlehem they were strictly designed to guide mages, i e astrologers (at least for this occasion) to Our Lord. If an astrologer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a horoscope and interprets it as a horoscope, it is his fault. And if a heliocentric astronomer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a wobble of earth, it is his fault. In the one case for ignoring how Jacob and Esau (and so many others born same day and even hour same maternity) had same horoscope but very different fates and and characters. In the other case for taking one of two attitudes to angelic movers: * "they don't exist" * "if they do it and Earth isn't moving, it's their fault". They have given a corrective by showing negative parallax in the best measurements yet, and astronomers react by calling these "incorrect parallaxes". One could just as well say, they are trying to tell astronomers they are alive and intelligent by different dance moves and failing all the time, because astronomers always have a newq mechanistic aspect to discover. "The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service. The wobble's amplitude has varied since its discovery, reaching its largest size in 1910 and fluctuating noticeably from one decade to another." In other words, the wobble has not any more than the other things exactly lived up to mechanistic explanations, but given astronomers surprises. And when we speak about celestial mechanics. How about looking at the page here: Is Newtonian Physics a Sufficient Explanation for Celestial Mechanics? The wobble seems to accentuate the problem.